If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Why would you expect manufacturers to share RF/TTL flash capabilities when they have not in the last 50 years decided to share a lens mount and interface? Once they started to get into auto-whatever the ability to use lenses from one manufacturer on another brand camera rapidly disappeared. It would certainly seem to me that there is more of a potential sale upside to shared lens platforms since most people spend a lot more on glass than bodies. Well, that was more true in film days when the sensor (film) was upgradeable without buying a new body.

Quick response...

I am going to ask one salient question and your response will be the reasoning:

Have you chosen your next camera system based on its flash capability?

It does not make sense to feel that flash triggering would be the deciding factor in camera technology. Minolta took that stance, back in 1996, and made major changes to their own flash systems, divorcing themselves from the former ISO to the proprietary hot shoe. That move caused all sorts of hate and discontent in the Midwest USA sales region. Do not get me wrong, the advanced flash system was a definite improvement, but it is like turning a huge freighter ship on a dime... the natural forces really do not like massive changes in direction.

Anyway, I am looking to see consolidation to a flash standard we all can live with, happily playing with each manufacturer's lighting stuff... and still maintaining the character of our respective equipment. The disparity, especially for SONY users, is just too much for the third-party to acquire enough revenue to justify a separate SONY solution.

Imagine the improvement in your photographic prowess if ALL lighting devices were available to you, no matter who made it. An adopted, in-the-camera RF-standard can provide that.

It a global economy... that is all they harp on.... and some aspects of photography should work generically. If you are going to talk the talk, then walk the walk.

Last edited by DonSchap; 03-14-2012 at 10:42 AM.

Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography A Photographer Is ForeverLook, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.flickr® & Sdi

how did any of this address a single point we have been discussing ? lol

LOL Rooz you know it's impossible for him to stay on topic! Or have a completely rational argument...

My favorite comments so far on this thread have been @TenD's...

Don: quit waiting for someone to do everything for you. If you feel that strongly about this RF Flash blah blah blah...get an engineering degree, come up with the technology, start a company, and then license the technology to all camera manufacturers. Or pay someone to come up with it. But don't charge camera companies too much so our cameras are still affordable...because by your statements it sounds like it's almost our birthright to have RF Flash technology in the cameras anyway... Easy, right??? LOL

Imagine the improvement in your photographic prowess if ALL lighting devices were available to you, no matter who made it. An adopted, in-the-camera RF-standard can provide that.

Imagine the improvement in your photographic prowess if ALL lenses were available to you, no matter who made it. Don't you think that might have a bigger impact on photography as we know it?

And yet, even with the horrendous burden of incompatible lighting devices, good photographers still manage to produce amazing art no matter what technology they use. Once again you are losing sight of the forest for the trees.

I am going to ask one salient question and your response will be the reasoning:

Have you chosen your next camera system based on its flash capability?

No.

Ok...so now that I've answered your salient question...now what ? Why was it even salient ?

does not make sense to feel that flash triggering would be the deciding factor in camera technology. Minolta took that stance, back in 1996, and made major changes to their own flash systems, divorcing themselves from the former ISO to the proprietary hot shoe. That move caused all sorts of hate and discontent in the Midwest USA sales region. Do not get me wrong, the advanced flash system was a definite improvement, but it is like turning a huge freighter ship on a dime... the natural forces really do not like massive changes in direction.

Ok, so...How is this relevant to anything ?

Anyway, I am looking to see consolidation to a flash standard we all can live with, happily playing with each manufacturer's lighting stuff... and still maintaining the character of our respective equipment. The disparity, especially for SONY users, is just too much for the third-party to acquire enough revenue to justify a separate SONY solution.

Now, i assume you are talking ttl here. Cos that's the only issue. I can use any brand of flash I wanted as a remote flash with cybersyncs used in manual mode. Manual IS the standard. If you are talking about one proprietary for all TTL flash...why would any manufacturer agree to this ? I don't understand the thought process you're using. What they're essentially forgoing is the margins made from selling you accessories and continue to make money off you. What about standard batteries then ? Standard chargers ? standard mounts as has already been proposed. Why on earth would they want to compromise that ? lol it just doesn't make any sense and its also a bit of a who cares moment. It's just not that big a deal.

Imagine the improvement in your photographic prowess if ALL lighting devices were available to you, no matter who made it. An adopted, in-the-camera RF-standard can provide that.

It wouldn't make one iota of difference whatsoever to my photographic prowess all all if all lighting devices were available to me. And I don't mean that metaphorically, I mean that literally...it wouldn't make ANY difference. Not even a 1% difference. Not even a 0.000000005% difference. Zero. Zip. Zilch.

It a global economy... that is all they harp on.... and some aspects of photography should work generically. If you are going to talk the talk, then walk the walk.

Global economy has nothing to do with generic standardization across multiple manufacturers. Zero. Zip. Zilch.

Stabilization was never a sell for me..in fact having a sensor dangling inside never assured me of anything..i have thought many times of snipping the wires and epoxying the damn thing in place......and lack of manual control on lenses is a pain....i love the zeiss glass though...the older minolta lenses are pretty much a ca nightmare...

We've gone down this road with Don before...we've told him there are GOOD TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING REASONS for NOT putting stabilization in the body, or having the sensor dangling around, like more accurate metering, etc. However, he's convinced that they are wrong, so off he goes.

My reasoning...

Forgetting the flash paradigm, for the moment,

and back on topic, AGAIN, SONY's progression toward the mirror-less design is not what I joined this canoe-club for. I do not remember anything stamped on the outside or inside of the a100's box that ever said, "standby for a change in direction."

In fact, based on the cameras that soon followed... I was of the belief that OVF was the course to follow and we could live happily ever after. BUZZ... there is not a DSLR left in the online alpha-mount catalog, at this point.

Who the heck gave them permission to change the camera completely? The legacy-users, who SONY courted to keep them supported and interested?

No... we are all standing here, with our OVFs and wondering "what happen to our new a7xx and a9xx camera?"

Guys... this is like so hosed. Very strange and... unexpected... from many years back. Friggin' movies in a standard camera body. It all went to crap from there.

I warned you Rooz... I told you it was a major mistake.

Here we go... imagine, me (of all people), looking to Nikon as an option. That's just grim.

Last edited by DonSchap; 03-14-2012 at 07:53 PM.

Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography A Photographer Is ForeverLook, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.flickr® & Sdi

You know, I really like the EVF in the A77 but there again, I really like the OVF in the A900 so I can understand anyone who comes down on either side of the fence. Not for APS-C though, I think that EVF is a winner there; not for the LCD type EVF though, this new OLED type is much better.

I'm not a Sony Fanboy but 40 odd years worth of legacy glass gives me a big incentive to stay with the brand and as long as Sony gives me decent photography tools, I will stay. The same would be true if I were invested in either Nikon or Canon, I'm certain that any one of the three would give me the required tools.

The interesting question is what and where the future lies and Sony is betting the farm on an electronic one. Whether we like it or not, the OLED EVF in the A77 is a winner and it can only get better. I've been playing with the EVF for six months now alongside the A900 OVF and IMO, the EVF already offers sufficient advantages to make the OVF redundant at least in the APS-C world.